††††
Criminal; Sentence Enhancements; Whether Defendantís Claim that Trial Court
Failed to Make Statutory Finding Required for Imposition of Enhanced Sentence
was Barred by Doctrine of Res Judicata.† In 1993, the defendant was found
guilty of several criminal offenses following a jury trial.† Thereafter, he
pleaded guilty to two part B informations charging him with being a persistent
dangerous felony offender and being a persistent serious felony offender.† As a
result, the defendant received an enhanced sentence.† Subsequently, the defendant
filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that, under State
v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748 (2007), his constitutional rights were violated
because the trial court, rather than the jury, made the requisite statutory
finding justifying an enhanced sentence; that is, that an extended period of incarceration
would best serve the public interest. †The trial court dismissed the motion for
lack of jurisdiction.† On appeal, the Appellate Court, after concluding that
the defendantís claim was not jurisdictionally defective, rejected the claim on
the merits, finding that Bell did not apply retroactively. †Meanwhile,
the defendant filed a second motion to correct an illegal sentence, in which he
claimed that the trial court, before imposing the enhanced sentence, neglected
to make the requisite public interest finding.† Based on its determination that
the second motion to correct presented the identical claim that was raised and
rejected in the first motion to correct, the trial court denied the second
motion to correct on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of res
judicata, which dictates that a final judgment on the merits constitutes an
absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim.† On appeal, the
defendant challenges the trial courtís res judicata determination, asserting
that the claims raised in the two motions were entirely different, in that the first
motion to correct raised a constitutional claim concerning the public interest
finding, whereas the second motion to correct raised a statutory claim.† According
to the state, however, both motions to correct were premised on a broader claim
challenging the validity of the public interest finding, which, the state
contends, is the relevant claim for purposes of a res judicata analysis. †Contending
that that claim was rejected by the Appellate Court in the appeal from the
denial of the first motion to correct, the state maintains that the second
motion to correct was rightly deemed barred by the doctrine of res judicata.†
Alternatively, the state argues that the statutory claim raised in the second
motion to correct is barred by res judicata because the defendant could have,
but failed to, raise that claim in the first motion to correct.† Further,
contending that the defendant, in his first motion to correct, judicially admitted
that the trial court made the requisite public interest finding, the state
argues that that judicial admission is binding on the parties and that the defendant
is barred from contesting it in this proceeding.†